Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-20

|
concesling it particeps crimin1s. Tn
judgment is affirmed.
Gilbert Gray ct al. VS.. j. 81. William
son, from Caldwell; opinion by Wilson
j. Appellee brought suit in the Count
court against Gray to recover debt an
foreclose chattel mortgage. Prior t
the suit one Stagner had Judgment eX
ecuted against part of the property and
was in the hands of a constable (Nugent
when the suit was instituted. One North
cut held landlords lien against the prop
erty levied On. Nugent sold the proper
ty, and it was bought in by Kleinsmith
Jacobs, Brackney and Mcmillan, and, af
ter it had gone into their possession, wa
| seized by writ of sequestration, whel
they gave affidavits and claim bonds TO
the trial of the right of property, and tn,
sheriff returned the papers in each cas-
to justice of peace, as he hac
Jurisdiction, appellee made all the abov,
parties, including all the four claimants
defendants. The four claimants pleaded
under oath in abatement as the justice
court had control of the cases pending
there. This plea was improperly over
ruled, and this disposes of the case. In
der the statute the property involved il
the suits pending before the justice wa:
entirely eliminated from the sequestra-
| ton suit, and the county court was di.
vested of jurisdiction. Appellee's only
remedy against said property was before
the justice, and this remedy is plain be
cause if the claimants fsil to establish
a superior claim to the mortgage
lien he would recover Judgment
The judgment is affirmed as to Gray
Stagner, Nugent and Northcut, and re,
versed and dismissed as to claimants
Klelnsmith, Jacobs, Brackney and Nc
MILAN.
Sam Early VS.. the State, from Parker
county; opinion by White, P. j. By one
count in the Indictment appellant was
charged with playing cards in house for
retailing spirituous liquors., and in the
other count charges the offense to have
been done in q room attached to the
house for the retail, etc, so that it be-
comes essential to connect the offense
with retail liquor house. The proof is
that the cards were played over store
room where spirjtuous liquors were sold,
and we are not Informed whether it was
sold at retail or not. Again the witness
says there was ''no immediate connection
between the saloon and the ROOM" and
saloon under the decisions does not nee
essarily imply 8 place for retailing
liquors. The testimony does not prove
the allegation, and the Judgment is re-
versed and the cause remanded.
2. H. HennsseY VS.. State, from Travis
opinion by Wilson, j. There was no
abuse of the discretion of a trial Judge
in refusing appellant q continuance, and
as to witness, Isreal, due diligence is not
shown to have been exercised to obtain
his testimony. The Indictment was
returned March II, and an attach
ment was not issued for Israel
until April 9, when he was found to have
moved TO Washington, D. c., and it does
not appear that service might not have
been had in time if applied for promptly,
and it doest not appear that his testimony
could not have been obtained in time by
deposition. The facts expected to be
proved by the absent witnesses are not
material, and because the amount of pos
tage charged to Senators Claiborne, Up
shaw, McManus and Houston was right,
1t does not prove that he did not falsify
the accounts of other senators. 4 careful
examination of the record shows the al
legged forged instrument copied correctly,
SIS the dot of the 'f'' being over part
Of the (n) in KNITTED is not variance
There was no error IN admitting the al
legged forged instrument in evidence.
There was DO evidence in admitting the
postofiice receipts, as they were proven to
have been made by defendant, and it was
a question for the jury to consider if they
had been fraudulently made Or altered,
and if so the7 could be used to show
fraudulent intent snd to prove 8 system
of fraudulent acts by collateral evidence,
and in order to show system subsequent
SIS well as prior offenses can be intro
duced in evidence. The testimony
OF Carr was properly admitted
because it tended to prove that defendant
had not purchased and distributed the
amount of material charged in his &C
counts, and thereby proving them false
and forming 8 party of the system of
frauds The trial judge did not abuse
his discretion in his manner OF allowing
the evidence to be introduced. The OBJ
lection to the charge is not we'll taken, as
we consider the charge model one. The
court did not err in overruling defendants
motion to quash and set aside the list of
Jurors presented him, and we must pre-
sumo that the objections urged were not
sustained by the facts. We have
considered the whole record care
fully and think defendant had a fair
and impartial trial. and the evil
denCe was ample to, prove ihis guilt. It
develops series of systematic frauds
and there is no room to doubt that he
committed the forgery. The Judgment is
affirmed.
Cynthia Cantrell VS.. J. w Motley and
L. L. Pickett, from Jack; opinion by
Wilson, J. Appellees sued Wiley and
Cicero Cantrell for COW and sued out 8
writ of sequestration. Defendants dis
claimed the cow and appellant made aft
davit and gave bond claiming the cow,
but her claim was dismissed before
Justice of the peace. She appealed to the
County court and her appeal was dis
missed and now she appeals % this court,
The Judgment of the County court dis
the appeal was correct, as the
judgment in the Justice court was not
final, but the order of the County court
for writ of procedendo was error, be-
cause the judgment was not final and the
County court acquired no jurisdiction.
The Judgment cannot be enforced until
made final, and if SO appellant can sp-
peal. 1t is reversed and reformed at cost
of appellees.
Texas and Pacific Railway Company vs.
0. P. Watson, from Eastland; opinion by
IL